Saptrishi Soni । The sentencing of Bangladesh’s former prime minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) marks one of the most dramatic and consequential political developments in the region in recent years. The tribunal held her responsible for alleged “crimes against humanity” during the violent, student-led protests in July last year, which reportedly left over a thousand people dead. While the court asserts that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the political implications of this verdict are far more complex and multi-layered than the legal ruling alone.
The July Uprising: Turning Point or Political Weaponisation?
The July Uprising was by all accounts a massive groundswell of public anger led primarily by students but joined by civil society organisations and political opposition groups. The trigger was a series of government decisions seen as authoritarian, but the protests quickly evolved into a broader movement questioning Hasina’s long-running rule and her party’s dominance over state institutions.
The UN rights office had earlier estimated that up to 1,400 people were killed in the month-long unrest. Even during Hasina’s tenure, international observers and human rights groups expressed alarm at the heavy-handed crackdown. Yet the speed with which the current prosecution—established after her government was toppled—conducted its case raises serious questions about whether the trial represents justice or political score-settling.
Critics argue that the tribunal, historically established to try 1971 war crimes, has now been used to target political rivals. Supporters of the current Bangladeshi administration insist that no politician, no matter how powerful, should be above accountability. However, the optics of sentencing a former prime minister to death in absentia, without her presence or participation in the trial, will remain globally contentious.
The Question of Due Process
International legal standards generally discourage trials in absentia, particularly when the punishment is irreversible. Hasina, already declared a fugitive, was neither present nor represented in a manner that would satisfy neutral observers. Moreover, the ICT-BD’s previous proceedings have earned both praise and criticism—praised for attempting to close the chapter on historical injustices, but criticised for alleged procedural lapses and political bias.
The verdict will likely fuel debate over whether Bangladesh is strengthening its rule of law or further eroding it under the pretext of accountability.
India’s Involvement: A Delicate Balancing Act
Hasina has been living in India since the collapse of her government in early August last year. This places New Delhi in a diplomatically sensitive position. India has long viewed Sheikh Hasina as a stabilising partner, particularly regarding counter-terrorism cooperation, border management and regional connectivity. Her removal from power, followed by a death sentence, complicates India’s strategic calculus.
If India continues to host Hasina, it may be accused by Bangladesh’s current rulers of interfering in internal affairs. If it distances itself, it risks losing a trusted ally and destabilising key bilateral arrangements. This situation demands careful diplomacy by New Delhi, which must weigh domestic public opinion, regional geopolitical pressures and international human rights norms.
Domestic Politics in Bangladesh: A New Power Structure or Deepening Chaos?
The downfall of a leader who dominated Bangladesh’s politics for over a decade has created a vacuum filled by competing political forces. The opposition, long suppressed under Hasina’s rule, has gained new political space. Sections of the public welcome what they see as a reckoning for years of authoritarianism. Yet the instability surrounding Hasina’s sentencing may also deepen polarisation and could provoke unpredictable reactions from her supporters.
Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. The ruling establishment’s hard line may consolidate some degree of short-term control, but the use of death sentences against former leaders often sets a precedent that future governments may repeat, perpetuating cycles of vengeance rather than reconciliation.
Regional and International Response
Western governments, particularly the US and EU states, have been increasingly critical of Bangladesh’s human rights record. The death sentence will invite further scrutiny and possibly diplomatic pressure. International human rights organisations will almost certainly label the judgment as politically motivated unless the trial process is shown to meet globally accepted standards.
At the same time, major geopolitical players—including China and Gulf nations—may take a more pragmatic approach, focusing on economic and strategic opportunities rather than democratic processes. This divergence will influence Bangladesh’s foreign policy orientation in the coming years.
A Precarious Future
The sentencing of Sheikh Hasina is not just a legal outcome—it is a political earthquake. It reflects deep institutional tensions, unresolved historical grievances, and intense competition among Bangladesh’s political factions. Whether the verdict represents justice served or political retribution will depend on how Bangladesh navigates the next steps: ensuring due process, maintaining stability and addressing the systemic issues that fuel unrest.
For now, the development has placed Bangladesh at a critical juncture, with consequences that will shape not just its internal politics but the strategic landscape of South Asia.
